THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO PACIA Y GERON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused Romeo Pacia y Geron files this appeal from the decision
of the Regional Trial Court,
Fourth Judicial Region, Lucena City, which found him
guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the legal heirs of the late Araceli
Vergara in the amount of twelve thousand pesos (P12,000.00) for the death of Araceli Vergara, one
thousand three hundred pesos (P1,300.00)
as compensatory damage for the personal items taken from the said victim and ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) as moral damages.

Culled from the
evidence adduced by the
prosecution are the folIowing important facts:

“Araceli Vergara
was a 21 year old barrio lass residing with her parents at Sitio
Polyok, San Isidro,
Candelaria, Quezon where
she used to go home during weekends from Batangas City
where she was studying.

“On that fateful day of September 27, 1981 at about 7:30
a.m. Araceli and her mother Miguela Capili were on their way
to the nearest church at San Juan, Batangas when Araceli
told her mother to change her footwear after
noticing that she was wearing Japanese slippers. 
While Araceli waited at the bridge, Miguela Capili returned home and changed her slippers.  When she returned to the place where
she had left Araceli, her daughter was no longer there. 
Hoping to see her daughter in
church she went to the church at San Juan,
Batangas but Araceli was
not there.  The distraught mother returned to Candelaria
and looked for her daughter
among her friends but her search was fruitless. 
The following morning, she saw Araceli at the banana plantation near the place where
she had left her, already dead.

“Dr. Flaviano Maligaya, Municipal
Health Officer of Sariaya, Quezon
conducted a post–mortem examination of
the dead girl and found on her
person the following injuries, viz:

‘1.  Lacerated wound 9 cm. long and 2 cm. wide located on the
left temporo-parietal region.  This wound is wide and deep enough to view
the underlying bone vault.  However, the
underlying bone vault, viewed has no fracture.

‘2.  Incised wound – 8 cm. long, 1 cm.
wide, and 1 cm. deep involving the upper anterior aspect of the neck.  This wound is running crosswise on the neck.

‘3.  Contusion, Hematoma,
9 cm. long, 2.5. cm. wide located on the right upper
portion of the back running along the superior border of the right scapular
bone.

‘4.  Contusion, Hematoma,
more or less circular in shape located on the right lower lateral quadrant of
the right breast and adjacent areas.

‘5.  Hematoma,
circular in shape 7 cm. in diameter located on the adjacent areas of the hypograstric and left iliac regions.”

“The doctor opined that the cause of death was massive
hemorrhage due to the lacerated wound on the scalp over the left temporo-parietal region and the incised wound at the upper
anterior aspect of the neck.

“In the vicinity where the dead girl was found, the police likewise discovered a
portion of the necklace chain worn by Araceli and a piece of wood apparently stained with
blood with strands of human hair stock to it.

“What had befallen Araceli after her
mother had left her at the bridge can be gleaned from the testimony of
prosecution witnesses Benito Cabanez and Epifanio Capili.  According to Benito Cabanez,
at about 7:30 o’clock in the morning of September 27, 1981, he has just crossed Masin
Bridge on his way to San Juan, Batangas
when he saw the accused Romeo Pacia dragging towards
the forest a person whom he discerned to be wearing striped T-shirt and pants
but could not be recognized because the head was hanging down to one side and the shrubs in the area were waist high.  Epifanio Capili testified that at about 7:30 o’clock in the morning
of September 27, 1981, he was
walking at Sitio Bantilan, Sariaya, Quezon on
his way to Candelaria,
Quezon looking for cattle to be purchased
and while answering the call of
nature in a bushy area, he saw two persons
one of whom was standing while
the other had fallen down.  The one standing was Romeo Pacia holding a piece of wood which Capili
recognized to be the one (Exh “I”) found by the police.  He also saw Romeo Pacia
dragged the befallen person to a
bushy area after which Romeo Pacia pulled out a knife from his waist and slashed the neck of the
helpless victim before going away. 
Though Capili could not recognize the victim of Romeo Pacia
because the head was hanging down and the hair covered the face, he was
positive that the person was a girl and
attired in striped T-shirt and pants.

“Miguela Capili
further testified that at the time she left her daughter Araceli
at the bridge, the latter was wearing a wrist watch valued at P500.00, a
necklace which cost P500.00, a gold ring valued at P200.00 and a pair of gold
earrings valued at P100.00.  She was also
carrying a prayer book, rosary and a wallet. 
These things were missing from the person of Araceli
when she was found.

“It was also brought out during the trial that Araceli has an older sister, a widow named Aurea; that the accused Romeo Pacia
and Aurea lived together as husband and wife for
three months; that Araceli was vehemently against this illicit relationship so that at one
time she told Romeo Pacia to keep away from her
sister Aurea because Romeo is already married and has
children; and that Romeo Pacia had, in one occasion,
threatened to kill Araceli.

“In his defense, the accused claimed that at around 7:30 o’clock in the morning of Sept. 27,
1981 he was in the house of Barangay Capt.
Guillermo Clandria at Manggalang-Quiling, Sariaya, Quezon
having arrived there at around 6:00 o’clock
in the morning to bath the fighting cocks of the Barangay
Captain.  Together with Barangay Capt. Clandria and one
Rogelio Talban, the accused left the house of the Barangay Captain at about 8:30
o’clock a.m. bound for the Candelaria
cockpit with three (3) fighting cocks arriving thereat at 9:30 o’clock that same morning.  The accused
allegedly left the cockpit for
home at around 4:00 p.m. with
his uncle Daniel Geron,
Barangay Capt. Guillermo Clandria,
Rogelio Talban and others.

“The accused admitted having cohabited with Aurea Vergara alleging that Miguela Capili was angry with him
because he had abandoned her daughter, claiming further that Benito Cabanez and Epifanio Capili testified against him because Benito Cabanez was his rival in the banana business while Epifanio Capili was sore at him
for abandoning his niece Aurea.

“The testimony of Barangay Capt.
Guillermo Clandria was of the same tenor.  This barangay functionary testified that the house of Romeo Pacia was about one hundred meters away from his
house and that Romeo Pacia arrived at his (Clandria’s) house at six
o’clock a.m. to feed and bath his fighting cocks.  After Clandria and Pacia have eaten breakfast together the latter never left
the former’s house until 9:00
o’clock a.m. when they proceeded to the cockpit at Candelaria, Quezon returning home
only at about 3:00 o’clock p.m.

“Another defense witness, an uncle of Romeo Pacia by the name of Daniel Geron
testified that he saw the accused in the
early morning of Sept. 27, 1981 taking to pasture two cows and a carabao and thereafter, at around 9:00 o’clock a.m. he
overtook the group of Guillermo Clandria, Romeo Pacia and Rogelio Talban
on their way to the cockpit at Candelaria and
together again, they allegedly left the cockpit to go home at about 3:00
o’clock p.m.”1

Appellant has assigned
the following errors:

“I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME
IMPUTED AGAINST HIM.

“II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES, WHOSE DEMEANOR AND DEPORTMENT HAD NOT
BEEN OBSERVED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE WHO RENDERED THE DECISION.

“III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO
THE APPELLANT.2

Appellant Pacia contends that at the time of the alleged crime, he was at the house of the Barangay
Captain Guillermo Clandria at Barangay Manggalang-Quiling, Sariayd, Quezon, at about 8:00 a.m. of September 27, 1981, up to 8:30 a.m., bathing the fighting cocks.  After that time, he together with the Barangay Captain and Rogelio Talban, went to the cockpit
at Candelaria, arriving at about 9:30 a.m.  They
brought three (3) cocks, but only two (2) fought, one (1) winning and the other
losing.  They left the cockpit at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon (pp. 2-7, tsn., Aug. 10,
1984).

Unfortunately for
appellant, such alibi deserves no credit. 
For alibi to prosper, the requisites of time and place must be strictly
met.1 It must be established by clear and convincing
evidence that the accused was at some other place and for such a period of time as to negate his presence at
the time when and the place where the crime was committed.2 As found by the trial court, there is no evidence to show it was physically impossible for
appellant to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission.  Moreover, appellant was
positively identified by prosecution witnesses Benito Cabanez
and Epifanio Capili.  In such case, the defense of alibi cannot
prevail over the clear and positive identification by the prosecution witnesses
of accused as the perpetrator of the crime.3

Appellant claims that the
testimony of eyewitness Cabanez should not be
considered because he did not report the incident immediately.  Records show that it took him (Cabanez) actually four
(4) days to report it.  Perhaps true, but
then it has been held that initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer
information about a criminal case, and their unwillingness to be involved in criminal investigations, are
common, and have been judicially declared not to affect credibility.1 In fact, silence
for one (1) year is sufficiently explained by the fear to
reveal what they saw.2 Here, Cabanez kept the incident to himself for only four (4) days because, as the records reveal, he
was scared.3

The same goes with Capili who
also did not report immediately what he saw. 
The mere fact that he did not report the incident is not sufficient
basis for rejecting his testimony.  He
testified that he saw appellant slashing the throat of the deceased.  This is in consonance with the doctor’s
findings that an incised wound was found at the upper anterior aspect of the
neck.

Furthermore, appellant
claims that the trial court erred in considering the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses without observing their deportment and demeanor, as a different trial judge heard their
testimonies.  This is totally unmeritorious.  The trial court based its decision upon its
careful study of the entire
record and evidence.  If the testimony of
a disinterested witness is
reasonable and insistent and is not contradicted by evidence from any reliable
source, there is no reason for
not accepting
it.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the
appeal is hereby DISMISSED.  The decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification
that the civil indemnity is
raised to thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00).1

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.

1 pp. 2-5, Judgment; pp. 61-64, Rollo

2 p. 47, Rollo

1 People v. Abaya, 170 SCRA 691

2 People vs. Almario,
G.R. No. 69374, March 16, 1989

3 People vs. Gohol, G.R. No. 55090, February 24, 1989

1 People vs. Delfin, 2 SCRA 911

2 People vs. Antonio, 11 SCRA 260

3 p. 12, tsn, Aug. 16, 1982.

1 People vs.
Agudo, G.R. No. L-43769, July 15, 1985.